Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart
21 Cal. 3d 322, 146 Cal. Rptr. 550, 579 P.2d 441 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of comparative equitable indemnity allows for the apportionment of liability among multiple joint tortfeasors based on their relative fault, even when one tortfeasor's liability is based on negligence and another's is based on strict products liability.
Facts:
- In January 1972, Rita Elliot was shopping at a Safeway supermarket.
- The shopping cart Elliot was using broke and fell on her foot, causing serious injuries.
- Nest-Kart, a division of Folding Carrier Corporation, manufactured the shopping cart.
- Safeway owned the cart, made it available to customers, and was responsible for its maintenance.
- Safeway's failure to properly maintain the cart in a safe working condition constituted negligence.
- The shopping cart manufactured by Nest-Kart was defective.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Rita Elliot sued Safeway, Nest-Kart, and Technibilt in a California trial court, alleging theories of negligence and strict products liability.
- A jury trial was held.
- The jury found for the plaintiff against Safeway and Nest-Kart, awarding $25,000 in damages, and absolved the plaintiff and Technibilt of any responsibility.
- Pursuant to the court's instruction, the jury returned special findings that Safeway was liable for both negligence and strict liability, while Nest-Kart was liable for strict liability only.
- The jury allocated comparative fault as 80% to Safeway and 20% to Nest-Kart.
- After judgment was entered, Safeway moved for a judgment of contribution to reapportion the liability to 50% for each defendant, pursuant to California's contribution statutes.
- The trial court granted Safeway’s motion, ordering a 50-50 apportionment of the judgment.
- Nest-Kart, the appellant, appealed the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of comparative equitable indemnity permit apportionment of liability between a tortfeasor found liable on a theory of strict products liability and a tortfeasor found liable on a theory of negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes, the doctrine of comparative equitable indemnity permits apportionment of liability between a strictly liable tortfeasor and a negligent tortfeasor. The court extended its prior holdings in American Motorcycle and Daly, which applied comparative fault principles to apportion liability among negligent tortfeasors and between a negligent plaintiff and a strictly liable defendant, respectively. The court reasoned that the fundamental equitable principles of fairness that justify apportionment based on fault apply equally in this context. The court rejected the argument that comparing negligence (fault) and strict liability ('no fault') is like comparing 'apples and oranges,' stating that such difficulties are more theoretical than practical and that juries are fully competent to make such allocations. A contrary rule would produce irrational results where a negligent manufacturer could be in a better position than a non-negligent one. Therefore, liability should be apportioned based on the jury's comparative fault findings.
Concurring - Clark, J.
Yes, prior precedent compels this result, but the comparative fault system is arbitrary, wasteful, and standardless. The jury's 80/20 division of fault is no better than a coin flip and greatly increases the time and cost of litigation. The judicial system is not equipped to implement this doctrine, which runs wild 'awarding at whim.' The Legislature should reclaim its role and reaffirm the statutory rule of equal, pro-rata division of liability among responsible tortfeasors.
Dissenting - Mosk, J.
No, this decision should not be permitted as it further infuses negligence principles into the independent doctrine of strict products liability, reducing it to a 'shambles.' The holding allows a manufacturer to dilute its responsibility for placing a defective product into the stream of commerce by shifting blame to other defendants. This result emasculates the doctrine of strict products liability and repudiates its core purpose, which is to ensure that the costs of injuries from defective products are borne by the manufacturers who market them, thereby weakening consumer protection.
Analysis:
This decision completes the trilogy of California Supreme Court cases (Li, American Motorcycle) that fundamentally shifted California tort law to a system of comparative fault. It establishes that liability will be apportioned based on relative culpability in virtually all tort actions involving multiple defendants, regardless of the underlying legal theories of liability. The ruling rejects a siloed approach to tort doctrines and prioritizes equitable apportionment over the formal distinctions between negligence and strict liability. This has a significant impact on product liability litigation, allowing manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to seek partial indemnity from each other based on their respective share of the fault in causing an injury.
